Let's start by examining two of the most common explanations for why there are so few women in computing: "Women just aren't interested in computers," and "Women aren't as smart as men." The problem with the statement, "Women just aren't interested in computers," is that it doesn't actually say anything. It's equivalent to answering the question, "Why is the sky blue?" with "The sky just is blue." The implicit argument here is that women are genetically predetermined from conception to not be interested in computers. Very few people are willing to say exactly that in so many words, but that is the message behind the "just aren't" theory. If you are unwilling to accept that women's lack of interest in computing is genetically predetermined (and I hope you aren't willing to accept it), you need to start exploring what environmental causes are involved.

A more explicit version of this theory is that "Women aren't as smart as men," or any of the usual corollaries--women aren't as good at some skill as men are, usually mathematics, spatial reasoning, or logic. Newsweek regularly trumpets studies finding gender-related mental differences while ignoring the (far more common) studies which find no difference at all. Frequently, other researchers are unable to duplicate the results or find flaws in the original researchers' methods, but those stories tend to get much less press. These studies also make no attempt to control for differences in the upbringing of men and women. For example, studies frequently show that women have better developed linguistic capability in some way. This is taken as proof, at least by the press, that women are genetically predisposed to be more verbal than men. But at the same time, studies also show that young women are rewarded more than young men for verbalization. The sheer existence of physical differences between male and female brains (an idea still in dispute) is not in and of itself proof that men and women are born with differences in mental capacity. We still need to separate out what differences are caused by genetics, and which are caused by the environment. As a result, if you ask the experts, the only consensus on gender-related mental differences is that there is no consensus. This is an area of ongoing research, where results will continue to be hotly debated for decades or centuries. (My personal opinion is that men and women do have some innate, genetically based differences which result in tendencies towards different behaviors, but I won't guess what they are or how strongly they influence behavior. Human beings are extremely adaptable creatures, so I suspect the genetic differences are minor compared to differences in environment.)

Something else to keep in mind is that similar arguments have been made about many other fields when women first began joining them, from medical science to education. For example, women couldn't be doctors because they weren't physically strong enough to set broken bones, would faint at the sight of blood, or didn't have the proper bedside manner. Those arguments were abandoned when women turned out to be just as good doctors and teachers as men were. Maybe men will turn out to be better at computer science than women, but history does not support that hypothesis.

A good reference for the general topic of measuring differences between human groups and the motivation behind those measurements is The Mismeasure of Man by Steven Jay Gould. Scientists have been "proving" differences in the brains and bodies of groups of humans for centuries, although in hindsight both their methods and their results were flawed. For example, Stephen Jay Gould reviews the methods of one scientist measuring skull capacity in men and women of different races (and by implication, brain size and intelligence). The scientist originally measured the volume of the skulls by packing them with linseed, which is somewhat compressible, and confirmed his hypothesis that white men tended to have larger skulls. When he later remeasured the volume of the skulls with incompressible lead shot, he discovered that much of the differences in volume between the skulls disappeared. He had been subconsciously stuffing the skulls belonging to white males with more linseed than the skulls belonging to women or non-white men. Keep this story in mind when you read studies claiming to find that some brain structure is a different size in men and women.

Now that we've addressed some common misconceptions about women and computing, let's look at the real reasons why women stay out of Linux and computing. I personally believe that the tendencies and behaviors I'm about to describe are the result of the way most women are raised, in other words, they are the result of gender socialization. I'm not claiming that women are born less confident, or anything else, I'm just observing general tendencies in women and pointing out how Linux culture discourages people with those tendencies. Many of the reasons I'm about to list also apply to other underrepresented groups in computing or science.

For example, while 53% of the male computer science freshman rated themselves as highly prepared for their CS courses, 0% of the female CS freshman rated themselves similarly. But at the end of the year, 6 out the 7 female students interviewed had either an A or B average. Objective ratings (such as grade point averages or quality and speed of programming) don't agree with most women's self-estimation. I personally encountered this phenomenon: Despite plenty of objective evidence to the contrary, including grades, time spent on assignments, and high placement in a programming contest, I still didn't consider myself to be at the top of my class in college. Looking back objectively, it seems clear to me that I was performing as well or better than many of the far more confident men in my class.

Once you realize that men and women are treated differently from, practically, birth, it becomes hard to claim that any woman hasn't experienced discrimination. Sure, if you're lucky, no one ever explicitly told you that you couldn't work with computers because you were a girl, but every time you raised your voice, an adult told you to quiet down, while the boy next to you continued to shriek. This is a handicap later on in life, when being loud and insistent is the only way to get your opinion heard--for example, on the linux-kernel mailing list.

The most striking example of a subtle bias against computing for women is that, in the U.S. at least, the family computer is more likely to be kept in a boy's room than in a girl's room. Margolis and Fisher give several telling examples of this trend and its effects on pages 22-24 of Unlocking the Clubhouse.

"A creative director for a leading development team cheerfully described to me how its Q.A. team made a prostitute sport a game's logo on her body during a combination gonzo video/gangbang session."

This was only one of many similar stories and events at the conference. How can an industry that views company-sponsored gangbangs as somehow appropriate *not* be driving women out of the computing arena in droves?